>> narrator: tonight frontline, america's retirement crisis. >> it's tough to really worry about retirement right now. i guess plan b would be to keep working. >> my retirement plan is fingers crossed and pray, basically. >> narrator: even if you have a 401(k) or ira, will you have the money you need to retire? >> if you make $100,000 a year, you need one and a half million to be okay. >> a lot of 401(k) programs are lousy. >> you put up 100% of the capital, you take 100% of the risk, and you get 30% of the return. >> narrator: correspondent martin smith investigates. >> smith: make it simple. >> that's a question that can only be answered on what your risk appetite is. >> smith: but this isn't making it simple.
>> well, i... i wish it was simple. >> if you want to gamble with your retirement money, be my guest. >> narrator: tonight frontline, "the retirement gamble." >> frontline is made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. and by the corporation for public broadcasting. major support for frontline is provided by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information is available at macfound.org. additional funding is provided by the park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the wyncote foundation. and by the frontline journalism fund,
supporting investigative reporting and enterprise journalism. in this bad economy are borrowing from their 401(k)s... >> the number of workers borrowing from their accounts has reached a ten-year high... >> a record number of workers now raiding their 401(k)s... >> martin smith: let's begin with one simple fact: america is facing a retirement crisis, and the statistics are grim. half of all americans say they can't afford to save for retirement. one third have next to no retirement savings at all. >> i just don't know if i'll be able to save that much. god willing, social security will still be there.
for someone like me, it'll probably be enough to keep me out of poverty. >> the retirement fund gets sliced and diced and divvied up for wall street to play with... >> i'm just going to have to somehow find a way to save 10% of my salary or 15% of my salary, which is probably what i need to actually be saving to have any shot of retiring, you know, not on food stamps. yeah, i don't know. hope to be able to retire. >> recently i've started to look into how to make more money, how to increase my income while still teaching. it's tough to really worry about retirement right now because i know it's so far off, and i know that worrying and stressing over it is an easy thing to do. but i'm also of the mindset that as long as i don't have too many bills or anything,
too many debts, then i could essentially live off of whatever i get. i guess plan b would be to keep working, but i'm really banking on plan a. otherwise, yeah, no, i don't have a plan b. >> it's hard to imagine even at this point in my life being retired. i just don't see it. you know, living the american dream of having your house and being able to retire... nobody has a pension anymore. it wasn't like it was in the '60s or '70s where people worked for, you know, good companies and had a pension plan. >> i think that's a rsh reality for a lot of people. i do think that we'll be working until... (sighs) we'll definitely be working until our probably mid-70s, if i had to make a...
unless we can make up some big ground soon. (engine revving) >> you know, i consider myself middle class. i don't have the luxury of a couple million dollars in savings. the cost of living is going up. your water bill goes up, your utility bill goes up, your gas bill goes up, your food goes up. retirees are getting stressed because their nest eggs, their savings are not producing any income for them, so they're all wondering where they're going to make ends meet. i'm fortunate i can live at a higher standard, because i have a little bit of a nest egg in my retirement savings. but others, they're at poverty level. >> smith: as for me, i'm almost 65. i started saving for my retirement in my late 20s.
but along the way, i dipped into my nest egg not once, but several times. so this is my ira and 401(k) and... >> which will be cleaned out over a certain amount of time. >> smith: and now, like millions of other baby boomers, i too don't have enough. >> the key to your retirement working out is having enough return on your assets. >> smith: most of my savings went to pay for my kids' educations. well, this is where fees would really hurt you badly as well. >> this is where fees would hurt you badly... >> smith: a divorce and the crash of 2008 didn't help either. it looks like my own personal fiscal cliff. i'm now planning to work for as long as i possibly can. this whole plan is predicated on working full-time until 70. >> yes. >> smith: and at 70? >> from age 70 to 75, i have you working part-time. >> smith: these days, many baby boomers
are planning to delay their retirement. some may never stop working. it's hard. without knowing exactly how long you're going to live, it's difficult to guess how much you need to put away. >> most people seem to feel that at retirement, to be okay, you need ten or 12 times pay. and maybe 15. so if you make $100,000 a year, you need one and a half million to be okay. you need to save more, you need to start sooner. you can't start work when you're 20 or 22 and decide to get serious about this in your 40s. the boat has sailed. >> smith: so what can we do? >> ♪ time has come today... >> smith: today, americans entrust over $10 trillion to thousands of big and small financial service providers. >> i just bought stock. you just saw me buy stock. no big deal! >> smith: with expensive marketing, these companies compete for our money.
>> yes, i'm for picking, i'm for buying. >> super, super strong buy. >> smith: but there are so many choices, it's hard to understand. >> when it comes to mutual funds, it's often hard to tell what you're looking at. >> smith: rather than a system, it's more like a free-for-all. >> i don't really see it as a real system. i see it as maybe a retirement mess, is a better word for it. >> looking for real-life answers to your retirement questions? >> if you're lucky, you have a 401(k).uc roughly half of companies offer a 401(k). if you work for a small business, chances are you don't have access to such a thing. some companies then offer other supplements, and then of course there's things you can do on you own, like the individual retirement account. >> smith: so it's entirely confusing. >> right. >> smith: so where does one begin? >> let's talk about that 401(k) you picked up back in the '80s. >> smith: about 60 million americans have signed up for their company 401(k) plan. >> these are your 401(k) election forms. as you can see, there are numerous options to choose from. and remember, this is your retirement,
so make your selections carefully. >> smith: but most people remember their first 401(k) meeting as dumbfounding. >> any questions? >> i had no idea. i was so confused. i came out of that meeting and i was like, "oh, my god." it was overwhelming for me, the knowledge that you had to have in order to invest. >> i really was kind of clueless. i didn't know what i wanted to invest in. i really didn't know anything about it. i had learned somewhere something about, "if you're young, you should be more willing to take risk. you have time." so other than that, i really knew nothing. >> and that's one of the best aspects of this... >> they showed you the plan. you either had your choices between an aggressive investment, moderate, or conservative. you know, there was nobody there managing my money; it was all up to me. >> so traditional pensions don't necessarily let you take it all in a lump sum... >> the 401(k) is one of the only products that americans buy that they don't know the price of it. it's also one of the products that americans buy
that they don't even know its quality. it's one of the products that americans buy that they don't know its danger. and it's because the industry, the mutual fund industry, had been able to protect themselv against regulation that would expose the danger and price of their products. >> smith: it used to be much easier. in 1970, 42% of employees had a pension: a guarantee by your employer that you would get a good percentage of your salary and benefits upon retirement. >> this is the life. what with my retirement plan and a few dollars i had saved, i didn't have a thing to worry about. >> smith: workers didn't have to figure out how to manage their own savings plan. it was done for them. >> it was very simple. the employee really didn't know any of the mechanics behind it. they just knew when they came close to retirement that they were promised a benefit, a secure income
over their entire life. so they had this income until they died. >> smith: and so what was wrong with that system? >> absolutely nothing, to be honest. it was a great system. the problem was that over the last decade, the rules of the game changed. >> smith: what changed was that people started living longer. new accounting rules, global competition and market volatility too affected the cost of maintaining a pension plan. >> the old system became an expensive system, i think, from an employer standpoint. they have to know how to manage investment risk and they have to know how to manage longevity risk. >> smith: and they have to spend a good deal of money. >> and they have to spend a good deal of money. and if the market doesn't do what they hope it will do, they can lose some of the cash that they've actually put in from a funded status standpoint. so it's pretty complex. >> one of our major concerns is to protect our accounts against risk...
>> smith: it was then that corporations found a new loophole in the internal revenue code. >> what essentially happens is that the 401(k) comes in in the late '70s, early '80s. it starts as a corporate tax dodge, basically. it's if you're a high earner, you're going to put some of your money aside. nobody ever thought that this was going to apply to the rest of us. i mean, there was never any thought of that. >> smith: so not quite by design, a new retirement system was born. (traders yelling) big brokerages and banks saw an opportunity to expand their business and helped employers set up and run their new plans. they promoted the arrangement as a win for everyone. >> from the individual perspective, the 401(k) actually opened up the opportunity to save for retirement for many individuals who worked for businesses that didn't have a pension. and it also allowed them to have a portable, vested amount of money that they could take with them,
as americans started changing jobs more frequently. >> smith: it's as simple, though, isn't it, as the businesses decided to get out of the business of providing pensions and shift the burden to employees? >> i would express that more as a sharing of the responsibility for retirement between employers and employees. >> smith: but while some employers contribute to employees' 401(k) plans, all of the risks fall on the individual. >> 401(k) plans really place the burden on the individual participant to have an adequate retirement. and the vast majority of ordinary people don't know how to do that. it's a very complex task. >> we wanted them to be able to figure out how much they needed to save for retirement, how to invest that money, and then once they had a lump sum once they retired, how to withdraw the money so they didn't outlive their assets.
so that's three different risks. >> picking and choosing the right investments requires very careful handling... >> smith: enter the mutual fund industry. >> people in the mutual fund industry realized that there was a huge opportunity here, right? i mean, not only could they sell their mutual funds directly to investors, but they could make the mutual funds the very foundation of the 401(k) plans. >> 1981, nobody knew what a 401(k) was. by 1989, it's in the lexicon. it's being written about, it's being talked about. throughout the '90s, now all large employers effectively have plans in place, people are participating, and it continues to grow from there. >> start saving $300 a month when you're 23 and you could retire a millionaire. >> smith: the boom happened in lockstep with the roaring bull market of the '80s and '90s. mutual funds were charging high management fees, but nobody seemed to care.
>> the returns were great, so no one thinks about, "how much is this costing me?" when they're earning 15% or 20%. >> smith: star mutual fund managers like fidelity magellan's peter lynch encouraged all of us to jump in. >> you shouldn't be intimidated. everyone can do well in the stock market. you have the skills. you have the intelligence. it doesn't require any education. all you have to have is patience, do a little research, and you've got it. >> smith: saving for retirement seemed as simple as betting on the market. >> it was a great time. employees who participated in these plans and invested in the stock market couldn't wait to open their monthly statements to see how much the value had gone up, you know. so things seemed to be working nicely. >> well, i was invested in everything: stocks, mutual funds, you name it. we would get monthly reports: things were growing, everything was growing.
in the '90s, you could not lose money in the market even if you were a dumb investor. i mean, it just kept growing and growing and growing. >> internet stocks drove a powerful surge on wall street today. >> internet stocks suddenly... >> the economy was doing great. i mean, you had all kinds of gains in the stock market. that was kind of the dot-com era. >> those internet stocks continue their meteoric rise... >> you really didn't have to pay attention to... you know, you got your statements at the end of every quarter and you were making money. >> it was exciting because just gradually over time, we would have a day where we would make $7,000 or... and as much as $30,000 in a day as it built, and even more. >> in 1996, we had, like, doubled our money. we had, like, $400,000, almost $500,000. >> smith: steve schullo and dan robertson believed they were headed for early retirement
the day their portfolio topped $1 million. it was november 11, 1999. >> oh, that was a very nice day, that day, wasn't it? >> what happened november 11? >> see, he doesn't... it's when our portfolio went over a million, silly. >> oh! >> that was just amazing. it was like, "well, yeah, this is how investments work. you invest it and it grows." i mean, that's how i thought about it. >> it was a manic monday in the financial markets... >> stocks plunged... >> traders are standing there, watching in amazement and i don't blame them... >> smith: but in the spring of 2000, the market collapsed. >> traders are working the phones today. a lot of their customers are freaked out... >> we did not know. this was our mistake. we didn't know it was a bubble. we just didn't know. our portfolio had gone all the way down to where it was in 1996, from $1.5 million to $500,000. >> $460,000, i think. >> all that was gone.
>> smith: at the height of the internet bubble, americans had also stuffed 19% of their retirement money into company stock. >> "should we invest all of our 401(k) in enron stock?" absolutely. don't you guys agree? (crowd laughing) >> smith: for savers like debbie skoczynski, who worked for comdisco, a computer leasing company, the fall would be precipitous. >> i was close to a half-million dollars i had in my 401(k) with company stock. you know, it was like, "wow, look at all the money we have. "look at what is happening. you know, i can retire probably when i'm 45." >> the dot-com failures continue to mount... >> smith: skoczynski not only lost her savings, she lost her job. >> comdisco today filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, including another 200 job cuts. >> they joined a who's who list of corporate bankruptcies. >> the day i got laid off, i lost it. i thought, "oh, my god, i'm a single parent. "i have no job. "i have a house, i have a house payment.
what do i do?" you know, and... i was scared. really scared. i didn't have much of a retirement left. i couldn't even borrow against it. and it was just something that i never foresaw ever, you know, losing my job, ever. never. >> smith: the worst was yet to come. >> concerns about shaky home mortgages are triggering fears of a financial meltdown on wall street... >> smith: eight years later, savers were hit again. >> turmoil in the mortgage market is far from over... >> this is volatility we haven't seen, of course, since way before you and i were born... >> smith: when the housing bubble turned into the crash of 2008, it put retirement even further out of reach. >> the economic turmoil of recent years is putting a comfortable retirement at risk for many americans... >> it was like, "holy smokes, how do you stop the bleeding?" >> the reality of what you've lost is huge.
i mean, not only have you now lost half of your 401(k), but your house is not worth anything anymore, either. so anything that you thought you were going to have there is gone, and now half of your 401(k) is gone. >> it's daunting. you know, if it took 13 years to accumulate $80,000 and one year to lose half of that and then try to get that back in another 13 years and only be at the $80,000 that you were 13 years ago? >> math doesn't work. >> the math doesn't work. >> smith: debbie skoczynski was already in a hole with next to nothing to cushion the blow of a second shock, and now her house was worth less than the loan she owed the bank. >> you know, there's some days where it's like you just want to go scream, you know, in the backyard, just scream, because you have your choice: do you pay this or do you pay this? >> smith: her bills were piling up.
she did what a quarter of americans have done: she dipped into what was left of her 401(k). >> i freaked out when i took the money out of my 401(k). it was hard. i mean, you know, you never... every day on the news, i'd listen to it and i'd be like, "oh, god, it's really bad. will i be able to keep my house?" you know, "what if my car breaks down? i can't afford a car payment." it just can't be this hard to make money. it can't. you hear these big companies with these people taking these huge bonuses. you're thinking, "well, what happened to the average joe?" they just don't care. they made their money already. >> growing outrage over those bonuses on wall street... >> smith: the year the markets crashed,ts wall street doled out $18 billion in bonuses. >> the latest bonus bombshell is sending shock waves across washington... >> smith: robert hiltonsmith entered the workforce in 2003.
he taught for a bit, worked at a coffee shop and then went to grad school, where he ran up $40,000 in student loans. but on the bright side, he had no savings to lose during the 2008 crash. when he graduated with a masters in economics, he was hired at a small think tank in new york. they had a 401(k), and he began to make regular contributions. but even in a relatively good market, he began to sense that something else was wrong. >> i have a 401(k). i save in it. it hasn't seemed to go up. it's awful. i kept checking the statement and i'd be like, "why does this thing never go up? this is weird." i mean, the stock market i knew was up and down but i was, like, "i still should be seeing some returns." >> smith: hiltonsmith decided to make a research project out of the subject. he began by looking at the investment options inside his 401(k) plan, 22 funds in all.
>> you know, you've got all these names, and the names tell you nothing. "it's a balance fund. it's a growth fund." okay, you know, yes, that's lingo for certain kind of broad investment strategies, but really, what the heck does it invest in? so i went through each of the actual fund prospectuses, which took me an exorbitant amount of time because each of these things were, you know, 50 pages long. they still wouldn't tell you what they were doing. >> smith: as he dug deeper, he discovered one fund invested in mortgage-backed securities, the kind of security that caused the collapse of the housing market. but that's not what worried him. >> i was digging into all the different aspects of it, and i kept coming back to fees. so here's the first mention of fees. this "exp ratio" right here. why would you think that "exp ratio" means "fees"? >> smith: hiltonsmith found over a dozen different kinds of fees,
including asset management fees, trading fees, marketing fees, record-keeping fees and administrative fees. >> fees when you withdraw money. fees when you take loans. fees when you actually get money out when you're retired, which i actually didn't even know about. i spent a month literally going, "oh, actually this fee is a subtype of this fee, "and, oh, that covers that, or no, that's another name for that." it was very opaque. >> smith: the average actively managed mutual fund carries an annual expense of 1.3%. some funds charge a fee of 2% and even as high as 5%. >> that may not seem very much, right? you know, you've got $50,000 or $100,000, and okay, so you lose $500 or you lose $1,000 a year. that's what you would pay to a financial advisor, right? but if you add that up over 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years
in a 401(k) plan, all of a sudden, you're well into the six figures as your balance grows. and that's the difference between running out of money before you die or having a little money left to pass on to your heirs. >> a lot of 401(k) programs are lousy. the fund choices stink, the fees are outlandishly high, and in many cases, you can take two next-door neighbors, you know, living on maple street in any town, usa, and one person is paying ten times as much to invest in a 401(k) as the other person. >> smith: to understand this fee business, i went to talk to someone who has thought long and hard about it-- jack bogle, the founder of vanguard, a company that offers some of the lowest fee products on the market. he says that if you want to improve your retirement outcome, make sure to minimize wall street's take.
>> costs are a crucial part of the equation. it doesn't take a genius to know that the bigger the profit of the management company, the smaller the profit that investors get. the money managers always want more, and that's natural enough in most businesses, but it's not right for this business. >> smith: bogle gave me an example. assume you're invested in a fund that is earning a gross annual return of 7%. they charge you a 2% annual fee. over 50 years, the difference between your net of 5%-- the red line-- and what you would have made without fees-- the green line-- is staggering. bogle says you've lost almost two-thirds of what you would have had. >> what happens in the fund business is the magic of compound returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compounding cost. it's a mathematical fact. there's no getting around it. the fact that we don't look at it, too bad for us.
>> smith: what i have a hard time underst hding is that 2% fee that i might pay to an actively managed mutual fund is going to really have a great impact on my future retirement savings. >> well, you have to rely on somebody to get out a compound interest table and look at the impact over an investment lifetime. do you really want to invest in a system where you put up 100% of the capital, you the mutual fund shareholder, you take 100% of the risk and you get 30% of the return? >> smith: i wanted to know how others would react to bogle's claims. jp morgan chase offers more than 100 mutual funds that charge anywhere from less than 0.5% to more than 2.5% annually. i want to get your reaction to an example that jack bogle gave us, and that is that if you invest over a 50-year investing lifetime in a mutual fund making 7% a year on average,
but you're paying 2% in fee for that, that that 2% will erode something like... two-thirds of your gains. >> so the lower fees relative to any given investment will always result in a higher accumulation. >> smith: but is his example correct? i mean, it's shocking that you would be giving up two-thirds of your... >> so i don't know the math behind the example that you're citing. >> smith: but does it sound correct to you? >> it sounds... it sounds high. >> smith: it had sounded high to me as well. so i took bogle's advice, found a compounding calculator online, and used a simple example in order to isolate the effect of fees. take an account with a $100,000 balance and reduce it by 2% a year.
at the end of 50 years, that 2% annual charge would subtract $63,000 from your account, a loss of 63%, leaving you with just a little over $36,000. most investors are unaware of all the types of fees they're paying. >> so as soon as everybody is actually seated, we'll go over what's going on. >> smith: crystal mendez started saving for retirement in her early 20s, but she rarely looked at her account and just assumed it was doing well. >> one day, my fiancé was looking at his retirement, and he was essentially bragging about how great he was doing, so i pulled out my annual report and we kind of compared notes, and i realized that he was doing far better than i was. he basically said, "honey, i think you're getting ripped off. we should look into this." >> smith: after looking at the fine print, mendez found out that she was invested in an annuity product
with a low return and a high surrender fee-- a penalty for any early withdrawals. >> i think it was 10%, was the surrender fee. so i was like, you know, battling with myself. "do i really want to give these people my money or leave it there, and then i won't have a surrender fee?" but i think in the end, i just said, "forget it, they can have the fee and i'll move on with the remainder of my money." >> smith: all this talk of fees made me curious about my own 401(k). i run a small company with a handful of employees. we make documentaries for frontline. but we're too busy to look at the fine print of our retirement plan. but while putting together this report, i went online to look at what my plan was offering. >> the funds that i'm allocated to, if you look at... >> smith: i found what hiltonsmith found: confusing tables of all sorts of products with different kinds of fees. >> but it doesn't have any sort of ticker on it. >> smith: but those are proprietary mutual funds.
>> right, they have 434... >> smith: i even found this offering: the american century livestrong fund, a mutual fund co-branded with lance armstrong's cancer foundation. how did this get here? how do funds like these get into my plan in the first place? in seeking an answer, i came across another family of fees. it works like this: in order to get their offerings placed on employer 401(k) nus, mutual funds rely on brokers and plan administrators. in return, the brokers ask for a payment or revenue share. it's a kind of pay-to-play arrangement, or, as some say, a kickback that adds another layer of costs to retirement plans. >> a lot of people use a term like "kickback" because in some ways, it is. it's a legal kickback.
there's nothing against the law about it. but it is a sort of "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" kind of arrangement. "if you sell our funds, "you will get a portion of the revenue we earn from selling them through you." >> this is a kind of sub-rosa part of this industry, and there's not a lot of information about it. but the fact of the matter is, as far as i know, those kind of payments to brokers for distributing your shares has simply become part of the system. you know, the brokers are getting a little religion here. they're saying, "why should i distribute your funds unless you pay me to? "you get these big management fees. "i want some of it. "you're getting plenty. give me some." >> smith: the problem is that these fees are not paid by the fund company. the bill is passed to you and me. here it is, buried deep in my 401(k) plan documents. it took me about an hour to find the reference.
do you think the industry could do a better job of making people aware of the effective fees on their savings? >> i think we could make people aware of the effect of every pressure that they have on their accounts. >> smith: what stands in the way of doing that better job? >> (laughing) what i would tell you is, sometimes it's very difficult to get people to focus on something that seems complicated and dull and boring. so could we do a better job with helping consumers understand all the things that are tied to what they just bought, whether it's financial services or their riding lawn mower? yes, it's too complicated. >> ah, retirement. sit back, relax, pull out the paper and... what? an article that says a typical family pays $155,000 in wall street fees on their 401(k)s? seriously?
>> it turns out the average american household willay nearly $155,000 over the course of a lifetime in fees alone. that's according to a new study. here to break it all down, robert hiltonsmith... >> smith: in the spring of 2012, robert hiltonsmith came out with his study on the impact of fees on retirement savings. >> when we looked at it, we really found that all of the costs of retirement are really being shifted onto individuals. i was amazed. i mean, everybody covered it: all the major outlets and all of the financial industry outlets as well. every one of them. these really have been sold to us, these 401(k)s and iras, as safe products over the years. the point is that this system isn't built for individuals at all. it's certainly not built for their benefit. >> an eye-opening report out this morning: fees are taking a huge chunk out of our retirement. >> smith: the industry took issue with some of hiltonsmith's numbers, but he had made his point. >> we are being charged a lot by these financial firms to do not a lot, in a lot of cases. we need something different out there. we need something simpler, something safer... you know, honestly, something that people can put their money in,
get good returns, not have to worry about losing their entire nest egg, and then trust that they'll actually be able to retire one day if they do the right thing and save enough, etcetera. >> we have a very prestigious panel with us today. >> smith: there is someone who has been promoting something simpler. >> i was criticized many years ago. somebody said, "the only thing that poor guy has going for him is the uncanny ability to recognize the obvious." (laughing) >> smith: for the past four decades, jack bogle has been preaching the gospel of long-term, low-cost investing through index funds. >> get wall street out of the equation. get trading out of the equation. get management fees out of the equation. you own american business and you hold it forever: that's what indexing is. own a fund that owns the entire u.s. stock market, does no trading, and has a cost of one percent a year to own. and that is the only way to do it. then you are the creature of the market and not of the casino.
>> smith: index funds buy and hold a broadly diversified basket of stocks that match the holdings of a market index: the s&p 500, the wilshire 5000, or maybe a bond or commodity index. they don't eliminate market risk, they ride the market up and down, but they are much cheaper because there is no active manager. >> you can guarantee to the shareholder that they will capture their fair share of the stock market's return, for better or for worse. if you want to gamble with your retirement money, all i can say is be my guest. but be aware of the mathematical reality. maybe you have a one percent chance of beating the market over time. it has been proven right year after year after year because it can't be proven wrong. it's a mathematical certainty, a tautology, if you will. >> smith: jack bogle would say, "stop fooling yourself. "you're better off investing in a broadly diversified index fund
than in actively managed mutual funds." what do you say to that? >> i think he's a... i'm not going to second-guess him. i'm going to say that i think that there's a role for actively managed product in the marketplace. >> smith: but that is second-guessing him. >> okay, so i'm second-guessing jack bogle. i respectfully disagree. i think there's a role for active management in portfolios. that's my belief. >> smith: but what is that role? how well do they perform? they come with names intended to reassure every investor-- growth funds, value funds, balanced funds-- and they are run by seasoned professionals who are paid handsomely to manage them. >> the question is what are you getting for that? are you getting superior performance? and the answer unequivocally for the industry as a whole is no.
there's no scientific evidence that mutual funds outperform a simple strategy of holding the market index. >> the verdict is in. it's been in for at least a quarter century. all else being equal, you should buy the cheaper fund. and one of the ultimate dirty secrets of the fund industry is that a lot of people who run other fund companies own index funds in their own accounts and don't talk about it. unless you put a couple beers in them. >> smith: the evidence is overwhelming. year after year,r, actively managed mutual funds fail to beat index funds. studies have borne this out repeatedly over various time periods, in bull and bear markets.
i asked the head of retirement at prudential, which markets dozens of actively-managed funds, what she thought about this. >> yeah, i haven't seen any research that substantiates that. i mean, i don't know whether it's true or not. i honestly have not seen any research that substantiates that. >> smith: so all the research that's done at vanguard that makes that argument, you've looked at that? >> no, i haven't. i haven't read everything. but so much of it depends on, you know, what i need is different than what you need, and there is not an asset allocation or a fund strategy that's right for everybody. >> smith: i talked to one woman at prudential who's head of retirement and asked her if she was aware of the studies that show that index funds did better over time than the actively-managed funds, and she said she wasn't. >> that's unbelievable. i find that actually unbelievable. >> smith: these people that are in the businessth know that the index funds do better, right?
>> they convince themselves that's not true. when i've talked to these people... >> smith: but wait a minute, all the studies... how can they convince themselves that's not true? >> because they're convinced they're recommending the fund that's going to do better. >> this is not a time when you want to be buying index funds. >> smith: and of course, there are hot funds. >> this is not gambling; it's investing. >> smith: the financial media loves them. >> the best-performing u.s. stock mutual fund this year... >> smith: and we're often susceptible to the lure. the problem is, as the small print says, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. >> well, if only the past were prologue, it would be a great thing. returns do not persist. >> some funds that are outperforming the broader market... >> good markets turn to bad markets, bad markets turn to good markets. so the system is almost rigged against human psychology that says if something has done well in the past, it will do well in the future. that is not true; it is categorically false. the high likelihood is when you get to somebody at his peak,
he's about to go down to the valley. the last shall be first and the first shall be last. >> last year's dogs could actually be this year's winners. >> smith: so why aren't more of us invested in a diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds? critics say it's because the fund industry spends millions hoping workers will follow their financial advice. >> they're hoping that the worried worker will actually trust an advisor. >> you have the audacity to believe your financial advisor should focus on your long-term goals, not their short-term agenda... >> smith: in its marketing, the industry implies that retirement advisors are on our side. >> smith: but when it comes to employee retirement plans, there are no clear standards on who can give advice. >> our financial advisors lead from a new position of strength. >> smith: the department of labor is responsible
for regulating employee retirement plans. >> we have a system today where anybody can hold themselves out as an expert. they call themselves retirement planners, financial planners, advisors, et cetera. we don't have a standard way that the consumer can figure out who has the expertise to provide advice. >> smith: what's a financial advisor? >> that is a term that means almost nothing. it is somebody who might be a financial planner, or it could be a broker who is really a salesperson. >> there are registered investment advisors, or fiduciaries, who are obligated by law to act in their client's best interests. >> let's talk about the cookie- cutter retirement advice you get at some places... >> smith: but the vast majority of so-called advisors, around 85%, are not fiduciaries. >> ...selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder, isn't that a conflict? >> smith: they are brokers or salesmen. >> a fiduciary is a professional who, by law,
is supposed to put your interests ahead of their own. broker-dealers are not under that obligation. they have to conform to a suitability standard, which means they can't put you into something which is totally unsuitable for you. >> it doesn't have to be the best thing that you could pick out for them. it's just something that's suitable. it's okay. i can't believe that somebody would want to get into a business and then stay in the business of merely being suitable. >> basically your guy is out for himself to maximize his sales, and the way he does it is to be loyal to the mutual fund. and they try to sell you the most profitable products. (school bell rings) >> smith: steve schullo learned this lesson the hard way, when he encountered someone selling financial advice in his school lunchroom. >> i met my salesperson in the teacher's cafeteria.
she showed us the different products. you know, i didn't know very much about investing, but in the back of my mind, way back then, "how is this person compensated?" was always a question, because i had worked in the private sector before i came into teaching, and i knew there were no free lunches. nothing is free. >> smith: the salesperson working on a commission basis offered schullo an annuity-- a retirement insurance product-- with what he thought was a guaranteed return of 12% a year. >> so i signed up for $200 a month. and for about five years, the interest rate was going way down to 3%. and i was wondering, "what the heck is going on here? why is it down to 3%?" i didn't understand that the insurance company has the right, every year, to reset that rate as they see fit. >> smith: so how can you know
when a financial advisor is really a salesman? >> if you're working with somebody who is trying to sell you financial advice, you say to them, "are you acting in my best interest here? "would you be willing to sign a pledge that says "that you're going to act as my fiduciary at all times "with all products? because if you're not, then i'm going to leave." and it's really just as simple as that. >> smith: another broker sold an annuity to the featherstons after the crash of 2008. at the time, it seemed suitable. >> this was a product that we had discussed with him, and we thought that this would insulate some of our money from what we had just gone through, what a lot of people had just gone through. >> you know, we trusted him. >> yeah, we trust him. >> yeah, we trust him. >> smith: but the problems came after mark got laid off and the couple had to break into their account. >> i mean, we're talking on $7,000, the fees have been upwards of $600 just to get the money out. >> i can agree paying the 10% penalty, you know, tuncle sam,
but these companies need to realize that they're making money off the backs of people that have worked hard for their money. it makes you mad, but you know, what are you going to do? you're powerless. >> he paid for advice that was not appropriate... >> smith: to try and hold the industry accountable, the department of labor proposed a new fiduciary rule in the fall of 2010. >> when tirement savings are at stake, advisors should put their clients' interests first. the critical question is, what constitutes paid investment advice? the proposal we're discussing today will amend a 35-year-old regulatory interpretation... >> smith: the rule would require all financial advisors to put their customers' interests before their own whenever dealing with retirement accounts. >> today, there are trillions of dollars in each of these markets. the variety and complexity of financial products have increased and made fee arrangements far less transparent.
>> smith: the financial services industry lobbied hard against the new rule. >> it just seems that the financial services industry is really concerned about... >> smith: they got the attention of congress. >> our job here in congress is not to preserve the business model that has existed for 35 years, but if you are going to upset that business model, we had better know why and we had better know where we are going. >> we don't need an alternative. we just don't need to do this. >> smith: the labor department pulled back their proposal. >> people in the suitability business have very good lobbyists, and they've done a very effective job of creating doubt in washington and concern about how something like this would be administered, about how the fiduciary standard would be enforced, about the costs of making whatever transition you would need to make. >> the full political power of the financial institutions and the mutual fund industry was completely engaged in making sure
that that rule never saw the light of day. >> smith: they were saying the rule is too tough. >> they were saying they don't want any rule. >> smith: they don't want to have fiduciary applied to them. >> because they're not really dispensing financial advice. they're just dispensing information and educational services, yada yada yada. give me a break. they're steering you to the funds controlled by their company. otherwise, you might leave and go somewhere else. >> smith: i asked the head of retirement at jp morgan asset management why anyone would want to take advice from someone not bound by a fiduciary pledge. shouldn't i want to only work with somebody who has a fiduciary obligation? >> not necessarily. >> smith: no? >> no. >> smith: isn't it better? >> it's different. >> smith: it's not better? >> it can cost more. you may not get any different advice or outcome, and it can cost you more.
>> smith: right, but make this simple for the investor. i sit down with somebody, and they give me some advice. you say i should ask a lot of questions. i want to know whether or not one of those questions shouldn't be whether they have a fiduciary responsibility to me. >> yes, i think that's a very good question to ask. >> smith: and if they don't? >> ask them what that means and see what you think about their answer. >> smith: well, make it simple. should i prefer somebody with a fiduciary responsibility? >> so that's a question that can only be answered on a personal basis based on what your level of need is, what your risk appetite is, and how much of the investment decision you want to delegate. >> smith: but this isn't making it simple. >> well, unf... i wish it was simple. >> smith: over the past couple of decades, we've handed over more than $10 trillion of our retirement money to the financial services industry.
they've built a pretty good business out of it. but how well is it working for you and me? so far, most efforts to reform the industry have fallen flat. recently, the government has forced through some new rules on fee disclosure, and the department of labor says it will try to reintroduce a new fiduciary rule soon. >> unless there's a game-changer, unless there's a law passed or laws passed or scrap the system and start over, as i advocate oftentimes, no, nothing will change, because there's no incentive for the market to change. people will just keep on saving because it's the only option they've got, and companies will keep on raking in the profits. >> smith: so saving for retirement remains a bewildering and frightening challenge for millions of americans. for the people we met in making this program, the outcomes are mixed. some are confident.
>> i definitely couldn't retire right now, but the fact that i'm planning ahead and investing wisely is hopefully, you know, going to help, and i don't think i'll run out of money. >> i am concerned about running out of money, but i'm a survivor, and if i have to downsize into a tent, i will. >> the retirement dream, i mean, we're living it right now. >> this is it. >> this is it. you know, life gives you these opportunities. we never planned to learn about investments until we got slammed in the gut. then, "oh, we better start paying attention here." >> smith: others are worried. >> i'm leery. i'm really, really leery. i don't know what i'm going to do. i feel like i'll be working for the rest of my life, absolutely for the rest of my life. >> it's hard to imagine even at this point in my life
being retired. i just don't see it. >> i just don't see it either. >> my retirement plan is fingers crossed and pray, basically. yeah, win the lottery. hope my dad has more money than he does. and the truth is, just going to have to find a way to save way more than you should have to. >> smith: meanwhile, what about hiltonsmith's research? he is now finishing his ph.d. dissertation on america's retirement crisis, but the grant money he needs to support his continuing work has dried up. as for me? over the last several months, i've spent a lot of time playing with different online retirement calculators. some were optimistic, others very discouraging.
i will keep working. >> next timfrontline... he was a lost soul... >> he believed violence was the only effective tool. >> on a political mission. >> he wanted to bring about a new world order. (gunshot) >> ...shots fired at the book depository. >> president kennedy has been cut down by assassin's bullets. >> did lee harvey oswald act alone? or was he part of a vast conspiracy? >> i'm just a patsy. >> on the 50th anniversary, frontlinedefinitive film, "who was lee harvey oswald?" >> go to pbs.org/frontline for a closer look at what the fees in your 401(k) plan are actually costing you. >> this is where fees would really hurt you badly. >> questions to ask about funding a balanced retirement plan. martin smith's extended interviews with jack bogle. >> look at the impact over an investment lifetime. >> and helaine olen.
>> retirement mess is a better word for it. f >> connect to thfrontline community, sign up for our newsletter, and follow us on facebook and twitter, or pbs.org/frontline. >> frontline is made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. and by the corporation for public broadcasting. major support for frontline is provided by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information is available at macfound.org. additional funding is provided by the park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the wyncote foundation. and by the frontline journalism fund, supporting investigative reporting and enterprise journalism.
captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> for more on this and other frontline programs, visit our website at pbs.org/frontline. frontline"the retirement gamble" is available on dvd. to order, visit shoppbs.org, or call 1-800-play-pbs. frontline is also available for download on itunes.
what if news wasn't just a commodity... ...but a commitment? news anchor: the fiscal cliff is a fiscal suicide mission- why shouldn't we explore every side of the story? news anchor: the syrian army had pulled back. where can you turn for news you can trust? how do we make sense of something like this? on pbs, we believe journalism should never stop asking questions. anncr: give to your pbs station and support independent journalism. we answer to no one, but you.
>> the world we live in is awash with data that comes pouring in from everywhere around us. on its own, this data is just noise and confusion. to make sense of data, to find the meaning in it, we need the powerful branch of science, statistics. believe me, there's nothing boring about statistics. especially not today, when we can make the data sing. with statistics, we can really make sense of the world. and there's more. with statistics, the data deluge as its being called is leading us to an ever greater understanding of life on earth and the universe beyond. and thanks to the incredible power of today's computers, it may fundamentally transform the process of scientific discovery. i kid you not, statistics is now